When will you stop voting for the lesser of two evils? (Poll)

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. The applicants will both be asked to vote on matters that count. The better applicant

will vote more often in ways that I think are better. A lot of people here think Bill Clinton was not the best person who could have run in 1992. He nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. A lot of people are disappointed in Obama. He nominated Sotomayor and Kagen. They are the left wing of the court. We could have refused to elect the lesser of two evils and sat those elections out. Who would George Bush Sr, Bob Dole, and John McCain have nominated?

Clinton and Obama in those nominations proved why they were not the lesser of two evils. Of those who ran, they were the best applicant for the job. Did they do everything right. No! But what they did right benefits all Americans far more than what they did wrong.

To say "lesser of two evils" is stating that both sides are evil and unworthy and, therefore, we should not vote for them. Lesser of two evils is a straw man argument that works to suppress voters who otherwise will go to the voting booth and make difficult choices.

People are hopeless partly because they are bombarded with the false argument that both sides are evil and their vote doesn't count. We have low voter turnout and telling people they are voting for evil discourages them from voting. People are hopeless because in our divided government nothing really gets done for the people. With more pragmatism and will to make difficult choices we might have a Congress that worked for the people.

The whole thread asks who is still voting for the lesser of two evils. Some of these people state they will not. These people are not asked to look at the candidates, their policies, their history and vote the one that comes closest to their principals, the best of he candidates. They are being asked why the fuck would they vote for evil.

Our system requires compromise. We are never going to get the perfect candidate running for the job. Some candidates have, indeed, been very good. Many have not. That is why we must compromise and choose the one that is the best fit. Compromise is required in Congress to pass a bill, not just between Republican's and Democrats, but between Democrats with slightly different political ideologies and histories. The idea that we cannot compromise is another fallacy. Compromise is absolutely necessary. If we refuse to compromise, we allow the other side to decide what the government does.

If you really think it matters "so fucking much" then you don't start out by saying both sides are evil so it doesn't matter.

It matters, because any Democrat running at this point in history is going to be at least little better than the Republican.

It matters because if we have enough Democrats, then Democrats get to set the agenda. The majority party in the House sets the agenda. You can have an agenda to repeal the ACA 55 times, or you can have an agenda that modifies the bill to make it better. You can not have both. You can have an agenda that seeks to rebuild our failing infrastructure, or you can have an agenda that seeks to defund homeland security because the President uses an executive order to get people treated a little more fairly. You can't have both. You can have an agenda to repeal or even make unconstitutional marriage equality, or an agenda that provides equal rights to all married people. You can have an agenda to radically change social Security and Medicare or an agenda that seeks protect them and make them stronger.

If you don't make careful reasoned choices when you vote, if you throw up your hands and say, "EVIL!" you don't even get a say in it. People who don't vote allow others to vote for them. Encouraging them not to vote by saying, they are all evil, is just wrong.